“Common Grace”? Some Verses for the Concept and a Note on the Label

For some reason, there are Christians that have a problem with labeling God's universal love, mercy, kindness, benevolence, or long-suffering as common "grace." Instead of dealing with their underlying conceptual problem that God can have a benevolent or loving disposition toward the non-elect, they quibble over the use of the term "grace" to describe it. If grace is at least, in some instances, God's favor shown to the ill-deserving, then it seems easy, on systematic theological grounds, to call his universal love common "grace." However, you know how the just-give-me-a-verse crowd is, so here are a couple for them:

NKJ Nehemiah 9:17 They refused to obey, And they were not mindful of Your wonders That You did among them. But they hardened their necks, And in their rebellion They appointed a leader To return to their bondage. But You are God, Ready to pardon, Gracious and merciful, Slow to anger, Abundant in kindness, And did not forsake them.

NKJ Nehemiah 9:31 Nevertheless in Your great mercy You did not utterly consume them nor forsake them; For You are God, gracious and merciful.

In other words, God was gracious or favorable towards these disobedient people, some of which, no doubt, were made up of the non-elect.

One might also use this verse:

NKJ Jeremiah 16:13 'Therefore I will cast you out of this land into a land that you do not know, neither you nor your fathers; and there you shall serve other gods day and night, where I will not show you favor.'

The term "favor" is the same term used in the Hebrew for God's gracious disposition [see the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Zondervan, 1997), 2:203-206.]. So, whereas the Israelites formerly had God's "favor" in their land, they will be cast out for their disobedience and no longer be shown favor (i.e. grace).

UPDATE:

Here are more verses:

NKJ Isaiah 26:10 Let grace be shown to the wicked, Yet he will not learn righteousness; In the land of uprightness he will deal unjustly, And will not behold the majesty of the LORD.

God showed favor/lovingkindness/mercy and love to all of Israel, not just to the elect within Israel.

NKJ Psalm 85:1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of the sons of Korah. Lord, You have been favorable to Your land; You have brought back the captivity of Jacob.

NKJ Isaiah 60:10 " The sons of foreigners shall build up your walls, And their kings shall minister to you; For in My wrath I struck you, But in My favor I have had mercy on you.

NKJ Jeremiah 16:5 For thus says the LORD: "Do not enter the house of mourning, nor go to lament or bemoan them; for I have taken away My peace from this people," says the LORD, "lovingkindness and mercies.

NKJ Jude 1:4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

NKJ Hebrews 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

If a person in error (P) advocates both propositions A and B as true, and A is true and B is what is false, a mere reactionary thinker will not only reject B, but A also, or at least the label/terminology that P gives to A (even if it’s an accurate label), falsely thinking that’s wisdom. For example: Because Arminians also believe in common grace, but load that concept with a prevenient grace idea that equally enables all men (or at least those who hear the gospel call) to savingly believe, a reactionary thinker (i.e., some self-described Calvinist) will either reject any sense of common grace, or at least quibble over the label “common grace” to the extent that they will try to disincline others from using it, falsely thinking that makes them wise and discerning. It doesn’t. “Common grace” is a perfectly fine label for the idea that God gives grace/favor to all mankind (Neh 9:17, 31; Psa 85:1; 145:9; Isa 26:10; 60:10; Jer 16:5; Heb 10:29; Jude 4, et al), though unevenly, yet commonly, in the sense of generally. “Common grace,” “general grace,” and “restraining grace” language is absolutely pervasive in early modern Reformed literature. It is only the overly wise, modern, totally reactionary thinkers who dislike the label itself, as if it is necessarily problematic. 

How Some People View Me

I would say that my "one-string banjo" plays an essential cord or note of scripture concerning God's goodness as revealed in the gospel, which apparently some people despise and want to evade, hence the accusation.

(HT: MacoMan)

Yet More From John Calvin on Redeemed Souls Perishing

For the faithless have no profit at all by the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather are so much the more damnable, because they reject the mean that God had ordained: and their unthankfulness shall be so much the more grievously punished, because they have trodden under foot the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was the ransom for their souls.

Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 2, 1:3-5, p., 39/27

When we show mercy to those who have erred, we must never indulge them by outright flattery, nor ignore their wrongdoings so that it grows even worse. We should show pity when we see that our neighbours are still subject to many weaknesses, and we should be patient with them, not in order to imitate them but to rebuke them with kindness. We should never gloat as many do who laugh and smirk over someone else's misfortune. Instead, we should mourn and say, 'How sad, that poor man has given offence to God.' It should distress us to see someone perishing who has been so dearly redeemed by Christ's precious blood; it should distress us to see God's righteousness and his glory diminished.

Calvin, Sermons on the Beatitudes, Sermon 3, Matt. 5:5-7 and Luke 6:20-21a, p., 46.

Imagine someone who takes care not to stir up trouble or annoy anybody, and who instead tries to please everyone: whether he is given a hard time or not; he will gently put up with many wrongs rather than make a fuss. Even so, we are bound to follow our Lord's precept here, and strive for peace in every place. So it is not enough to refrain from violence, ill-will or injury to others: when someone is in the wrong, we must resist; when innocent people suffer affliction, we should support them as much as we can, bring them help and relief. When we see two people at odds with each other, we should feel pity for two souls redeemed by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but who are in danger of perdition. We should grieve when victory goes to the devil, who is the prince of discord, and when God, who is the author of peace, is shut out. That thought should make us want to put an end to quarreling. That is also why, God curses all who stir up dissension and conflict among men. They are like firebrands, who by their gossip incite former friends to hate each other; and when mutual suspicion is aroused, they sneak in and fan the flames. It is as if there were an open wound, and someone were to come and, instead of applying good ointment, rubbed in poison or venom, making it flare up even worse.

Calvin, Sermons on the Beatitudes, Sermon 4, Matt. 5:8-10 and Luke 6:22-23, p., 54-55.

“The only Lord God,” or, God who alone is Lord. Some old copies have, "Christ, who alone is God and Lord." And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price.

Calvin on Jude 4. The Torrance edition says:

God . . . the only Master [R V mg]. Some old texts read, ‘Christ, who is the only God and Master’. Certainly, in II Pet. 2.1, there is reference only to Christ, and He is called Master [R V, ‘Lord’] there. Denying . . . Christ, he says, of those who have been redeemed by His blood, and now enslave themselves again to the devil, frustrating (as best they may) that incomparable boon. That Christ may keep us within His fold, let us remember that He died for us and rose again, to be the Lord of our living and our dying.

John Calvin, "A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke—Volume III; and the Epistles of James and Jude," in Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance, trans. A. W. Morrison, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994–96), 3:325.

(HT: DWP, aka Flynn)

For more like the above, see the following posts:

An Excellent Calvin Quote

One of My Favorite Calvin Quotes

A Few Calvin Quotes

Even More From Calvin

After seeing all of this primary source information, I never fail to be astonished at all the fudging on Calvin, as if there's no discontinuity between his view of Christ's death and John Owen's view. Nothing can be more plain than the discontinuity between these two men. If I held to a strictly limited atonement view, I would just say Calvin was wrong, rather than try to say that he held to my perspective. Agreeing with Calvin does not necessarily make one biblically correct, but we should be honest with the historical data when it's presented to us. We should not only strive to be biblically honest, but we should also strive to be historically honest. Some, like Dr. R. Scott Clark (a professor of historical theology, of all things) on the Puritan Board, are so bold(?) as to declare the historical debate between "Calvin and the Calvinists" to be "dead," as if there's continuity between Calvin and Owen on the point. Rather than dealing with the quotes listed above, we seem to only hear the condescending retort, "just read Trueman," or "just read Muller," or "just read Nicole," or, more popularly, "just read Helm". I have read Helm and Nicole and, frankly, they are not persuasive. What would I say? Just read Calvin himself :-) He's plain enough. If you disagree with him, just say so. That's the honest thing to do.

Envy and Jealousy Distinction

Envy, Envying

A. Noun.

phthonos, "envy," is the feeling of displeasure produced by witnessing or hearing of the advantage or prosperity of others; this evil sense always attaches to this word, Matt. 27:18; Mark 15:10; Rom. 1:29; Gal. 5:21; Phil. 1:15; 1 Tim. 6:4; Titus 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:1; so in Jas. 4:5, where the question is rhetorical and strongly remonstrative, signifying that the Spirit (or spirit) which God made to dwell in us was certainly not so bestowed that we should be guilty of "envy."

Note: Zelos, "zeal or jealousy," translated "envy" in the KJV, in Acts 13:45; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 3:3; 2 Cor. 12:20; Jas. 3:14, 16, is to be distinguished from phthonos, and, apart from the meanings "zeal" and "indignation," is always translated "jealousy" in the RV. The distinction lies in this, that "envy" desires to deprive another of what he has, "jealousy" desires to have the same or the same sort of thing for itself.

W. E. Vine, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nelson, 1985), p. 204.

Basically, jealousy says "I want what you have" while envy says "If I can't have what you have, then I don't want you to have it either." Envy seems to be a more intense degree of covetousness. Now that you have this distinction in mind, you will be able to tell how much of what you're seeing reported on TV and elsewhere is grounded in the sin of envy.

If the disputed passages of Isa. 14 and Ezek. 28 have any typological reference to Satan, then it seems that he was initially moved by jealousy (wanted to have God's glory), but then he was overcome by envy (doesn't want God to have glory). His entire existence is now consumed with an envious desire to steal God's glory. Do we even think of envy as exceedingly sinful in our ourselves and in our culture anymore? One will certainly never see most politicians condemning the sin of envy without hypocrisy, for they seem chiefly guided by it, which is one of the reasons why eternal hell will be that much hotter for them. They not only envy themselves, but they encourage others to practice it via tax policies. How many quarrels within the church are due to envy? One is never more like Satan than when guided by envy.

It was envious hearts that delivered up Christ to be crucified.

NKJ Mark 15:10 For he knew that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy.

These words by James are particuarly strong:

NKJ James 3:16 For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.

Calvin on 1 John 2:2

Steve, at Controversial Calvinism, has posted an analysis of Calvin on 1 John 2:2 that is worth reading. Besides the Heshusius passage, this may be the only other place high Calvinists can go to attempt to prove their continuity with Calvin on "limited atonement". In addition to that, they just say "read Helm!" or "read Nicole!" or "read Trueman!" or "read Muller!" Then they accuse us of being "one-string banjos". That's about all they have in response.

Ralph Wardlaw (1779–1853) on Watering Down the Gospel

There is imminent danger of divesting the gospel of some attribute as essential to it as its grace, in order to lessen the aversion of the carnal mind to its provisions; and, by soft and specious sentimentalism, stripping the Almighty of the awful in his character, to give effect to the more attractive; hiding his justice, to recommend his grace; instead of employing the “terrors of the Lord” to persuade men, keeping them out of sight; dwelling much on the love, and little on the light, of God’s moral nature; and by—I know not what to call it—a kind of ultra tenderness, that would fain be more compassionate than He whose compassions are infinite—urging and almost cajoling poor sinners to the belief that God has already pardoned them, when the Bible testimony is, that “God is angry with them every day.”

Ralph Wardlaw, Two Essays (Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton, & Co. and Wardlaw & Co., 1830), 204.

Bio:
Wiki

Ralph Wardlaw (1779–1853) on Sufficiency, Equivalentism and Commercialism

I have stated the general principle of atonement, as being a vindicatory manifestation of the righteousness of God, in order to the free and honourable exercise of his mercy.—In this view, I have no hesitation whatever in holding forth the atonement which has actually been made, and which is revealed in the gospel, as of unlimited sufficiency for all, and as bringing salvation near to all, presenting its blessings for their immediate acceptance. All may not be included in the secret purpose of God as to its ultimate efficaciousness. That is another matter. With such secret purposes we have nothing whatever to do, in addressing to sinners the calls and invitations of the gospel. The atonement is for all in its unbounded sufficiency, and in the unrestricted universality of the invitations and offers which, on the ground of this sufficiency, the message of mercy addresses to every sinner on the face of the earth to whose ear it comes. Such is my impression of its sufficiency, that were all the guilt of all the millions of mankind that have ever lived concentrated in my own person, I should see no reason, relying on that blood which "cleanseth from all sin," to indulge despair.—I profess myself decidedly hostile to every limitation of the atonement in this view—that is, either with regard to its sufficiency for all, or with regard to the warrant which all have, on the ground of it, to look for forgiveness and salvation.—I have ever entertained an irreconcilable aversion to the views of those expositors, who speak of the atonement as being for the elect in such a sense, as to have been an exact equivalent for the punishment due to the sins of the chosen number, and no more; so that if more had been to be saved, more must have been suffered by the Substitute, and if fewer, less. My objections to this view of the doctrine are such as these:

1. It appears to me utterly irreconcilable with any correct and consistent views of the infinite worth of the Redeemer's sacrifice.—The union of the Divine and human natures imparted to it this infinite worth; infinite, because divine. But every system which proceeds upon the principle of its rising or falling in its amount of value, according as the substitute suffers for more or for fewer—for a larger or a smaller aggregate guilt—is altogether at variance with this.—That cannot be unlimited in value, which is capable of increase or diminution.

2. If this pitiful process of commercial reckoning were admitted,—then the perdition or eternal sufferings of all mankind would have been a greater manifestation of the divine righteousness and abhorrence of sin, than the sufferings of the Son of God. For, it is evident, more would have been endured: and if the display of justice is to be calculated upon this principle,—to be estimated by the amount of actual suffering,—how can the inference be evaded? It will not repel it to remind me that Jesus was a divine person. It is most true. But it is also true, that if this consideration is taken into the account, it makes the value of his sacrifice unlimited, and therefore proves too much for the hypothesis of exact equivalent; a hypothesis, of which the principle is, a limited amount of suffering for a limited amount of sin; so that, in truth, the only intelligible use of the connection of the divine nature with the human, must have been, to enable the human to sustain the allotted quantum of suffering.

3. The hypothesis renders the salvation of any besides the elect a natural impossibility. We are accustomed to say, and we say truly and scripturally, to sinners of mankind, that if they are not saved, the fault is entirely their own, lying solely in their own unwillingness to have the salvation offered them, or to accept it on the terms on which it is presented. But on the supposition of limitation in the atonement, this is not the case. There is, indeed, indisposition on their part; and it is their sin. But if the atonement be limited in its sufficiency, it is, in the nature of the thing, absurd and contradictory so much as to imagine any, beyond the number to the amount of whose sins it is restricted, deriving any benefit from it. To call on any others to believe in Christ for salvation, is to call them, in as far as they are concerned, to believe in a non-entity. There would be nothing in the Saviour for them. They are excluded by the limitation of the remedy. For them to seek salvation would be to seek an impossibility. Were they ever so desirous of it, they could not obtain it; for the impossibility would, in this case, arise, not from their own impotence,—(their moral impotence, which is the same thing as their proud and unholy aversion, and constitutes their guilt,)—but from the very nature and constitution of the plan of redemption. If the atonement made has been equivalent to only a limited amount of sin, and if atonement be necessary to forgiveness,—then beyond the limited amount, no sin can possibly be forgiven. There is no provision for it.

4. This being the case, it will be difficult, on such a hypothesis, to vindicate, in any way, the sincerity of those divine addresses by which sinners universally are called upon to believe and be saved. If there do not exist, in the atonement or propitiation made, what has appropriately been termed an objective sufficiency for all—there really exists no ground on which sinners in general can be invited to trust. Such invitation becomes no better than a tantalizing of perishing creatures, with the offer of what has no existence. There is nothing which it is, in the nature of the thing, possible for them to receive, unless a new atonement were to be made. There is no fund from which their debts can be paid. They are invited to a feast; but there is no provision made for them. They are called to the wells of salvation; but to them they are "wells without water." An all-sufficient Saviour, becomes, in addressing sinners indiscriminately, a designation destitute of truth, a mere "great swelling word of vanity."

5. The hypothesis, in the view which it gives of the substitution and work of Christ, takes nothing into the account but the desert of the sinner. It balances a certain proportion of deserved punishment on the part of the transgressor, by a corresponding proportion of vicarious suffering on the part of the atoning substitute,—a proportion, which increases or diminishes, according to the number of sinners, and consequently according to the number and magnitude of sins, for which the substitute endures it. It appears to be entirely forgotten, that there is another party,—a party, whose claims are infinitely superior in importance to any interests of the sinning creature;—it appears to be forgotten, that the glory of God, violated by transgression, requires to be secured, and vindicated, and displayed, irrespectively of the mere numerical amount of sinners and of sins;—that this was, in truth the great end of substitution and atonement;—and that the question is not one of commutative or commercial justice,—what measure of suffering must be undergone, as an equivalent for the measure of sin to be forgiven,—how many drops of expiatory blood for so many trespasses to be remitted;—that it has no such principle in it of wretched mercantile calculation; that the chief part of it is, what was necessary to give such a manifestation of the united glories of the truth and love, the righteousness and mercy, of Jehovah, as that the honour of his character and government might be fully secured in forgiving and saving sinners?

I might, perhaps, have added with truth, that regarding the atonement as proceeding on the principle of commutative or commercial justice, or of the strict and proper payment of debt, can hardly be considered as leaving room for the subsequent exercise of grace, whatever there might be in its original appointment; inasmuch as the payment of a debt by a surety leaves no more claim, on the part of the creditor, than if it had been discharged by the debtor himself. The parallel, indeed, between the relation of a debtor to his creditor and that of a sinner to God, has, in this respect as well as in some others, been pressed too closely.—Forgiveness, according to the uniform statements of the word of God, is connected with atonement. But atonement and grace are not, by any means, incompatible. Many things, indeed, have been said about it, which were they true, would go so far, whether those who say them to be sensible of it or not, to destroy the gracious nature of the pardon bestowed on account of it. I have no objections, for example, to the customary phrase of divine justice being satisfied by the atonement; but still, the phrase requires to be scripturally explained. I fear there are not a few who, when they use this phrase, have in their minds too much of the principle of that particular kind of justice to which I have just alluded;—who regard the justice of God in the light of a rigid and inexorable creditor, demanding to the uttermost farthing the payment of what is due him; and consider the atonement as, literally and strictly, such a payment of debt on our behalf. They are not aware that by such a representation they do, in a great measure, exclude grace. For, on the principles of commercial justice, although there may be grace on the part of the Surety who comes forward to pay the debt, grace proportioned to its amount,—yet on the part of the creditor to whom the payment is made, there is and can be none. The act of payment, by whomsoever made, whether by the debtor himself or by his surety, cancels the obligation, and puts an end to grace.

Ralph Wardlaw, "On the Extent of the Atonement, and Universal Pardon," in Two Essays: I. On the Assurance of Faith: II. On the Extent of the Atonement, and Universal Pardon (Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton, & Co. and Wardlaw & Co.; A Fullarton & Co. and John Wardlaw, Edinburgh; W. F. Wakeman, Dublin; and Hamilton & Adams, London, 1830), 191–197.

Bio:
Wiki

Three Resurrection Quotes

"We are more sure to arise out of our graves than out of our beds." Thomas Watson

"Christ, like the sun eclipsed by the moon, got Himself out by His resurrection; and, as the sun by the moon, He was darkened by them to whom He gave light. His death did justify us, His resurrection did justify His death. He buried the law with Himself, and both with honour; He raised up the Gospel with Himself, and both with glory. His resurrection was the first stone of the foundation, "In Christ shall all be made alive," and the last stone of the roof, for God assures us that all come to judgment by this token, that He raised Him up from the dead (Acts 17:31). Satan danced on His grave for joy; when he had Him there once, he thought Him sure enough; but He rose again and trampled on the devil's throne with triumph. This is the faith peculiar to Christians. . . . His resurrection is not only the object of our faith, but the example of our hope." Thomas Adams

"The divinity of Christ finds its surest proof in his resurrection (Rom. 1:4). Christ's sovereignty also depends on his resurrection (Rom. 14:9). Again, our justification hangs on Christ's resurrection (Rom. 4:25). Our very regeneration depends on his resurrection (1 Peter 1:3). And most certainly our ultimate resurrection rests here (Rom. 8:11). The silver thread of resurrection runs through all the blessings, from regeneration onward to our eternal glory, and binds them together." Charles Spurgeon